From your post -
"There are a number of things wrong with the creationist "probability" argument, however. The first and most obvious is that wildly improbable things happen all the time. How improbable must a thing be before it is "too improbable" to have happened without Divine Influence? The odds of any human being being struck by lightning are enormously improbable, yet every year at least a dozen people are killed in the United States by lightning bolts. Have they all been struck down by God? Is the chance of any particular person being struck by lightning "too improbable" to have happened by chance? "
Terrible comparison! He's comparing one improbability with a ans entire series of improbabilities eend for evolution.
The first and most obvious thing wrong with creationist math is the assumption that there is a specified goal to be reached. It's fairly easy to discredit natural selection if you don't know what it is and lie about it.
For those who play Bridge (is there anyone left?) the creationists are calculating the odds of a specific hand being dealt, rather than calculating the odds of reaching game.